Standing Committee B

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Civil Aviation Bill

Clause 2 - Regulation by Secretary of State

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out subsection (2).—[Justine Greening.]

Nicholas Winterton: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
No. 35, in clause 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert 
', and may also issue penalties on aircraft, otherwise legally permitted to take off or land, which exceed the maximum take-off noise limits, specified by the Secretary of State,'.

Justine Greening: I think that I will start with a reprise of the comments that I made before lunch, to set in the context of the amendment. The amendment would remove the part of clause 2 that gives the Secretary of State the powers to remove the movements limit. As I was explaining, at present, noise at designated airports is controlled via a mix of controls. On the one hand there is a quota count system, which examines the absolute estimated noise that people have to bear on the ground, and on the other there is the control exerted by the movements limit, which limits the absolute number of aircraft able to land during periods such as the night-time period, during which, currently 16 flights come into Heathrow.
My argument is that, while we have the next regime of the night flights consultation, which will run up until 2012, we should use that time to get the real facts and data that is needed to make an informed assessment of whether the Secretary of State should have the powers to remove the movements limit. By that I mean several things. First, we need to start to measure the actual noise, as we have already discussed in the Committee. Close to the immediate Heathrow area, for example, there are noise sensors, but further out—in the hinterland, where local people are very much affected by aircraft noise—there are far fewer controls in place to manage what they have to put up with. There is a similar situation with regard to many of our airports. We must therefore start to look seriously at measuring actual noise on the ground. 
Secondly, returning to the speech that I made on Second Reading, we must look at how that noise affects people. I believe that it is something like 20 years since the last large-scale study that examined the impact of prolonged and sustained aircraft noise on people who have to bear it day to day and, in my constituents' case, every night. 
Thirdly, we need to examine whether there is an economic case for continued night flights at Heathrow. There are currently 16 night flights, transporting 2,000  to 3,000 passengers every morning, each of which will manage to wake up several hundred thousand Londoners, who also contribute to the London economy. I am not aware of any robust public work that has been done that adequately stacks up whether there is an economic case for those night flights that outweighs the economic benefit that my constituents, and many others who are woken by night flights, contribute to London's economy. 
Finally, I believe that before we confer any further powers on the Secretary of State to remove the movements limit, we need to be clear as to what the Opposition's and the Government's policies are on excessive noise. We touched on that matter earlier today, and it has been made all the more relevant by our earlier discussion on targets. I urge the Minister, if she is not able to give us further information on that policy today, to give us the information on Report, or to issue some guidelines about what might constitute excessive noise. I would be happy to discuss that matter further with the Minister at a meeting, when we could address face-to-face some of the issues that my constituents have to put up with on a day-to-day basis.

Julian Brazier: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) on her cogent defence of her constituents in this matter. Putney, as she has reminded us already, is under the flight path for Heathrow.
The provision that amendment No. 14 would strike out is one of the most controversial bits of the whole Bill. We spent time discussing it in a more general way on Second Reading, but my hon. Friend has given us the opportunity to focus closely on it. It is worth quoting one or two of the protestor groups. For example, Mr. Steve Charlish, the leader of a group of Leicestershire residents, who is concerned about noise from Nottingham East Midlands airport, comments: 
''The Civil Aviation Bill is looking at discretionary powers to allow a greater number of relatively less noisy aircraft into London airports. This surely is going to lead to more night flights, not only around the airports but along flight corridors nationwide where these aircraft will be transiting through night time hours, destroying tranquillity over very wide areas.''
That view is echoed by the Stop Stansted Expansion campaign, which has made a number of points: 
''As it stands, this amends the Civil Aviation Act in such a way as to empower the Secretary of State to discontinue applying limits to the number of night aircraft movements at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and replace these with noise quotas alone.''
I am sure that we shall get a technical explanation from the Minister and that we shall be reassured that the Bill will do no such thing. However, looking at the wording, I can understand why the protestor groups are concerned at the idea of replacing a straightforward cap on numbers with a concept of noise restriction. That could mean, effectively, that if aircraft were a bit quieter, there could be more of them at night. 
The Secretary of State has said that there would be consultation before there were changes on this issue, although I am not clear about what form of consultation that was. The fact is that flights at night are perhaps the number one concern of people who  live near airports. I support the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney in such an articulate fashion. I shall be looking carefully at the Minister's response on what the proposal that my hon. Friend seeks to strike out would do if it were left in the Bill, and at the Government's plans in that area. 
Amendment No. 35, in my name, is grouped with amendment No. 14. There is a real concern about excessively noisy aircraft. On Second Reading, that was the issue that came up second most often, after the issue of the number of night flights. As somebody put it, ''You can hear any number of low background noises, but it is the one really shrieking sound that can ruin your afternoon and certainly your night.'' 
I shall quote a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk): 
''Maximum noise limits for aircraft taking off from designated airports have been set for many years, but have only been fully effective since the British Airports Authority was required to install monitoring equipment in the early 1990s. Maximum noise limits are extremely important because obviously it is the noisiest aircraft which cause the most annoyance and because they put a pressure on aircraft manufacturers to produce quieter aircraft. The present limits were set in 2001 and have not been reduced since the banning of chapter 2 aircraft in 2002. The fact is that the limits are very little lower than they were in the early 1990s because some old types of aircraft are still flying. When it is suggested to the Department for Transport that the limit should be reduced and that the penalties should be reduced and that the penalties should be regarded as a charge on noisier aircraft in line with Government policy that airlines should cover their external costs, the civil servants' reply is always that they cannot impose penalties on aircraft which are otherwise legally permitted to fly.''
Hence the wording of the clause that aircraft that are otherwise legally permitted to fly but are exceeding the maximum noise limits should now be fineable. We seek to give the Government that power. The Government have been clarifying powers in a variety of areas that we dealt with this morning. We suggest that they should have an additional power which seems thoroughly justified. To summarise amendment No. 35, where an aircraft is landing and taking off completely legally, but exceeds the Government's noise limits, there should be a power to fine it. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to both points.

John Pugh: As I understand it, this is an amendment to an amendment to the Civil Aviation 1982. I read the original script fairly carefully. However one reads it, it appears that the sole, if not the main, tool with which one can mitigate the effect of traffic flights on people living near airports is by limiting the number of flights taking off, particularly at night.
The Government amendment appears to leave that tool there but to make it an option. The other option available is to limit the effect of noise on the surrounding airport by taking noise quotas into account. One is in effect replacing the clear criterion of movement—one knows how many planes have been in—by a less clear criterion. Presumably a quantum of noise is fixed and within that quantum there may be appreciable variation at inopportune times. That causes anxiety. It is not just a matter of what might be the subjective effect of particular noise, or how it might be felt in particular areas, but the fact that  within that quantum there could be a significant and disturbing variation. 
There is the suspicion that the Government intend to make it easier for big carriers to have more flights late at night, perhaps on quieter airlines that use quieter planes, but none the less to increase the total volume of traffic. There is an argument against doing that. There is a quite clear environmental argument that says that we should give an incentive to carriers not to increase the number of flights but to ensure that planes are run full at night rather than, as often happens, at only 80 per cent. or 70 per cent. capacity. 
The Government could quite easily get rid of the suspicion by adopting a belt and braces approach. They could keep the limit on flights but bring that limit further down if those flights do not fit in with the noise quota. They can get round the difficulties that they have had in court over setting noise quotas and at the same time keep the advantages of the current system. From a tactical point of view too, as the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) pointed out, with consultation now going on about night flights, this is possibly not the right signal to send. 
We support the amendment and would like some strong reassurance from the Government, which the public also wants, that this is not a kind of Trojan horse by which we can increase the total volume of air traffic under the excuse that it fits in with some overall noise ceiling.

Robert Syms: I have some sympathy with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). Aircraft can be counted, but noise is rather more of an arguable proposition. As we all know, when a council gets its measuring equipment out, the noise is never as bad as the constituents who think they are victims of noise say that it is. Both proposals are needed in the Bill, as belt and braces.
If the Bill is to be relevant, significantly more monitoring equipment is needed to reassure constituents who are under the flight path of busy aerodromes. Some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Putney might be met if the constituents knew that there was a much more robust system for measuring noise. 
I presume that there is a noise level; let us call it X. Aircraft are getting quieter because of technology and the noise may fall below that level. Is it the Government's intention to reduce the noise over a period of time? Or will they keep the noise level at X and allow aircraft technology to move noise below that level but not necessarily reduce the levels of noise for people who live around aerodromes? 
Is there a different measurement of noise during the night? We all know that when there is traffic, when the television is on and when people are doing things at home, their tolerance of noise is different from at night when things are quiet and people are in bed. Noise tends to travel further at night and night noise is the biggest problem for people who live adjacent to aerodromes or under a flight path. I hope that as the Bill progresses through the House the Minister will reassure us about investment in measuring  equipment—over the years we will get much better at measuring levels of noise and understanding the problem—and how one measures noise. 
On Second Reading the Minister mentioned different types of noise. If Government money were to be invested in universities or anywhere else, investigating people's tolerance to noise and types of noise might, in these more environmentally sensitive times, be a good investment.

Karen Buck: As with so much else that we have discussed today, the proposal exemplifies the need to strike a balance between economic and other national interests that are served by the aviation industry and the need to bear down on noise and protect the interests of our constituents and the general public. I say that first because it is important to remind the hon. Member for Putney that as part of the current night flights consultation issued by the Government we are asking airlines for their illustrations of the economic benefits of night flights. The hon. Lady raised that point, and it is a fair one. Although we try to do what we can to protect members of the public from noise it is important that we ask for the case to be reviewed and for the airlines to give us advice.
I repeat that is important for people to recognise that the Government have no sinister intent in tabling the clause. The existing powers date back to a time when limiting the number of movements was the only feasible means of controlling noise. However, other methods such as noise quotas are now possible. We therefore believe that the legislation should be amended to ensure that the most appropriate method, or methods, of noise control can be used in any given case. 
Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State the option—I stress the word ''option''—to impose other controls that would provide a continuing incentive to switch to quieter aircraft at night while permitting movements to grow with the accompanying economic benefit. The Secretary of State will be able to impose noise quotas and other restrictions relating to aircraft taking off and landing as appropriate and will not have to specify the number of movements as at present. 
The present situation is based on section 78(3). It enables the Secretary of State by notice to prohibit aircraft of descriptions specified from taking off or landing during periods specified in the notice, and to stipulate the maximum number of occasions on which specified aircraft may be permitted to take off or land at an aerodrome during specified periods. That power is used for avoiding, limiting or mitigating the effect of noise and vibration connected with the taking off or landing of aircraft at night at a designated aerodrome. 
Rather than setting out the maximum number of occasions on which aircraft can take off or land, under the powers in the Bill the Secretary of State might wish to introduce noise quotas, the effect of which will be to limit the number of aircraft movements, even though the maximum number of movements is not explicitly stated. The imposition of such a noise quota or noise  contour would mean that a limit on noise exposure was fixed, and the existence of that limit would mean that there was an attendant limit on the number of aircraft movements at an airport. 
If I have correctly understood the example of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about the one noisy aircraft that could destroy a night's sleep, I would argue in response that it provides a strong argument for using the noise contour or noise quota approach, because it is precisely through that noise measurement that one would be able to bear down on individual aircraft that are excessively noisy.

Julian Brazier: On Second Reading, it was stressed that the method by which we measure noise is laid down by various conventions to which we have signed up. Can the Minister confirm that her argument is about not the actual noise as experienced by an individual on the ground or by an independent noise monitor, but the putative noise as per the out-of-date method of calculation used in the relevant treaties?

Karen Buck: I will not be drawn to respond in the way that the hon. Gentleman's slightly loaded question invites me to. As he is aware, there is a recognised form of measurement that has been extant for some time. He will also be aware, because it was discussed on Second Reading and today, that the project for the sustainable development of Heathrow and the regulations that will be introduced in 2007 will study certain other aspects of noise measurement, including the differential impact that noise can have in different parts of the day. Therefore, work is being done to establish that the exact way in which noise is perceived is fit for purpose. I cannot make any statements as to what the outcome of that process will be, but I can say that work is being done to address some of the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made.

John Pugh: I am trying to follow the argument, and I think that I might have a better handle on it now than I had at the start of this debate. Under the current system, if a plane makes an horrific noise when it starts off but that instance of noise is within the number allowed for that night, then so be it. Is it the case that if at the start of an evening a plane taking off from Heathrow makes an inordinate amount of noise, when a noise quota system operates that will have consequential effects on the number of scheduled flights allowed to leave Heathrow that evening?

Karen Buck: I am not sure that I can answer that detailed question on my feet; I would hate to answer it incorrectly. I will establish what the right answer is. Clearly, there would have to be a consequential impact, or else the whole point of the quota system would be undermined. However, I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question later.

Justine Greening: I think that I can answer that question. It goes to the heart of why relying purely on the noise quota system is problematic: namely, that it is based on estimate noises. The hon. Gentleman is right. Currently, we have no mechanism to address the case of a landing plane that is significantly louder than its estimate. That is my fundamental concern about relying on the noise quota system; it is impossible to address what the people on the ground experience  versus what we would expect via the system, which is why I ask the Minister to agree to the amendment. It would give us a second lock on the door of noise management.

Karen Buck: In terms of an overall noise framework, a movements limit would not have any impact, even if the hon. Lady is correct in the way she presents it. A movements limit would have no impact at all on that excessively noisy aircraft, so it still makes sense to consider the option of a noise quota or noise contour as part of the means of control.
I should like to repeat the confirmation that I gave on Second Reading. The next night restriction regime, running until 2012, which is currently being consulted on, will be based on current legislation and will continue to incorporate movements limits. That is, as I mentioned earlier, a matter on which HACAN has expressed its approval. There has been a long-standing convention that proposals to change to the night restrictions regime for designated airports and the other main noise controls, such as the departure noise limits, are subject to public consultation. There is no question of any future removal of night movements limits being sprung on to the communities affected. I hope that that explanation has provided the hon. Lady with some comfort, although I suspect that we may still have a disagreement on the matter. 
As for amendment No. 35, no amendment is needed to enable the Secretary of State to set departure noise limits at designated airports. The present departure limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are set, and will continue to be set, under the existing powers of section 78. However, previous Administrations and the current Government have accepted that it would not be compatible with the UK's international obligations to set a daytime limit so low that most of the large long-haul aircraft, certificated to ICAO standards and legally entitled to operate in the UK, would not be able to be operated. 
Similarly, the night-time and shoulder period departure noise limits must be broadly compatible with the night flying restrictions that we set under section 78(3). Any new departure noise limits that acts as a restriction in its own right would be subject to directive 2002/30 on noise-related operating restrictions, which we have incorporated into UK legislation by the Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendments.

Justine Greening: I will withdraw amendment No. 14, but I am not satisfied with the Minister's response. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will return to the subject on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. Forgive my ignorance of procedure—I should know this after all the years that I have been in the House—but at what stage do we take the vote on new clause 6, which was deferred earlier? Is it taken at the end of the sitting?

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has given the answer to his question. It will be at the end.

John Pugh: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 2, page 3, line 30, leave out '10%' and insert '20%'.
This is a simple and straightforward amendment, with which we need not detain ourselves for too long. It puts up the rate of fines from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. It is a probing amendment, the thrust of which is to understand where the figure of 10 per cent. comes from. We do not want to end up with a situation where the penalties and costs of both pollution and generating noise are simply read into passengers' bills and the costs are passed on down the line and become part of trading practice. They must be effective, and we are not entirely convinced that a 10 per cent. level is completely effective. 
Statistics for Birmingham international airport, which currently has a system, show that it collected £9,448 in fines in 2003–04, accounting for 15 infringements of the code then in place. That works out at £630 per offence, which is a sizeable chunk. About 22,000 people in the vicinity of Birmingham international airport are affected by each of those infringements. Their recompense—if I can put it like that; their trouble—is 3p per person. It makes minimal difference in terms of the penalty that they see delivered, and it probably makes a limited difference to the operational costs of the airlines. The suggestion that the fines be increased from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. is throwing the gauntlet down to the Minister, and is questioning whether that 10 per cent. is sufficient, and if it is thought to be sufficient, how its sufficiency was established.

Robert Syms: The hon. Gentleman made a brief point about the levels of fines. He gave us information specific to one airport, and I should like to hear from the Minister whether the CAA collects from all airports the information on fines allocated first to airlines and secondly to particular aircraft. Is there a league table? Is there an aircraft that has been fined the most? Beyond the daily fining of aircraft, do we try to use that information? The relevant point is not whether the fine is £500 or £600. To be honest I am not too worried about the levels of fines; I am worried about what we do with the information. Do we have nasty aircraft and quiet aircraft lists? Do we know which carriers specifically are better and which are worst, so we can differentiate the regime? If we do not have that information, is it not something that we ought to hold?
I should be interested to know what we do with the information about noisy aircraft, because if one or two make the most noise and one or two carriers are the worst noise polluters, we should hit those who cause the most nuisance, rather than those who cause the least nuisance but occasionally make the odd infringement. When we discuss the penalty system in more detail, it would be better to set it to hit airlines that transgress the most, rather than those that by and large undertake to respond reasonably to their environmental records.

Julian Brazier: This is a good probing amendment, as it simply tries to get to the bottom of the scale of the fines. I thoroughly agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). It would be interesting to know what is done with the information. I stand to be corrected, but as I understand it a level five fine is only £5,000. When reference is made to the manager, it is actually the airport that will end up paying it, and for a particular offence the effect of the amendment would be to raise the maximum fine from £500 to £1,000. It seems rather a modest amount, particularly for the persistent offender.
The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) made it clear that this is a probing amendment, and I shall not go into the appropriate amount for a fine. However, what seems to be missing is the discretionary power to levy a substantial fine against the sort of persistent offender whom my hon. Friend mentioned. 
The airlines are not cash cows, and I shall develop that point shortly in another debate in which I shall seek to restrain an amendment. However, it would seem reasonable to allow greater discretion in circumstances involving a particular persistent offender.

Karen Buck: It may be helpful if I set out the purpose of the power in section 78(9) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to impose fines on the operator of a designated aerodrome. The fines are payable by the manager of an aerodrome designated under section 78 if he fails to perform the duties set out under section 78(8) when the Secretary of State requires him to do so. Those duties are to provide, maintain and operate noise measuring equipment in the vicinity of the aerodrome, as specified by the Secretary of State, and to report the noise measured by the equipment to the Secretary of State and to permit the inspection of equipment. There is no fine for noisy aircraft. There may be some misinterpretation of this element of the Bill.
The powers in section 78(8) have never been required, as BAA has voluntarily provided noise monitoring equipment and reports at the designated airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. As a result, fines have never had to be levied. The Government's reasoning in providing for a daily fine of up to £500 in the new provisions is that a daily fine equal to that imposed for the first offence appears disproportionately high. I believe that we may be dealing with different issues and on that basis I ask the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Pugh: We have had an interesting debate. Of course, it was tangential to the clause, but we will have words with our researcher. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Power for aerodromes to

Tom Brake: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 34, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) A competent authority established in accordance with this section (referred to in this section and section 78B below as the ''competent authority'') shall have the power to set maximum departure and arrival noise limits for aircraft and to determine and collect penalties from aircraft operators who exceed these limits.'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 20, in page 3, line 43, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'.
No. 21, in page 4, line 2, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'. 
No. 22, in page 4, line 5, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'. 
No. 23, in page 4, line 11, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'. 
No. 24, in page 4, line 14, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'. 
No. 25, in page 4, line 19, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'. 
No. 26, in page 4, line 25, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'. 
No. 27, in page 4, line 30, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'. 
No. 28, in page 4, line 33, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'.

Tom Brake: I draw hon. Members' attention to proposed new section 78A(1), in clause 3, which states:
''The person for the time being managing an aerodrome . . . may establish and maintain a penalty scheme.''
The amendment would ensure that such a scheme was set up by a ''competent authority''. That term might need definition, but perhaps it is worth explaining first why we feel that a competent authority is needed, rather than necessarily the airport manager. That brings us back to the issue that we discussed earlier in relation to Coventry airport. Is the manager of Coventry competent—I am sure that he or she is—when it comes to setting noise limits for aircraft departing from the airport that are flying for the company that owns the airport? 
In discussions with the CAA, it has identified, for instance, that there is a department within the CAA called the environmental research and consultancy department. The ERCD is already responsible for monitoring noise and emissions at three designated airports and it carries out consultancy work at other airports, so it might be the appropriate competent authority. Clearly, it is doing work on noise and emissions and it is doing work at a number of designated airports. Therefore it might be the sort of authority that we need to see in place at airports such as Coventry to ensure that a proper noise scheme is implemented, rather than one that perhaps works to the advantage of a particular airline. All the other amendments in the group relate to that and would  replace in the appropriate places the phrase ''relevant manager'' with ''competent authority''. Like many others, this is a probing amendment to give the Government an opportunity—

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good principled and theoretical point, and I think that I understand it, but has he any evidence relating to current schemes involving noise monitoring by an airport? Has he a list of complaints that that does not work in practice?

Tom Brake: To say that I have a scientifically drawn-up schedule of complaints would be unfair. However, it would be fair to say that there is a body of anecdotal evidence from individual residents and community groups up and down the country relating to concerns about noise schemes. We have debated the issue of monitoring noise. One must question whether there are any current measures that are sufficiently watertight and robust to enable such complaints to be documented. The provision, in handing responsibility to a body such as the environmental research and consultancy department, would ensure not only that a robust scheme was established but that monitoring was appropriate and of an order that communities around airports would find satisfactory.
The Minister now has an opportunity to respond with alternative proposals. I know—although I do not want, like the official Opposition spokesman, to speak for her—that she will refer to the powers that the Secretary of State has as a last resort. However, I hope that she will expand a little on whether a competent authority might be a better alternative to the relevant airport manager.

Julian Brazier: I am enjoying the rather unusual experience of finding that I am midway between the other two parties on the matter that we are considering. A little earlier we had a debate in which the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats tried to persuade the Government to adopt a much more modest measure than the one that we are discussing, relating purely to new aircraft, and looking ahead to 2020, to take account of the wishes of the British aviation industry. We were disappointed that the Government were unable to do that.
Now, alas, we part company with the Liberal Democrats. The provision goes too far. It seems to the Conservative party that it is unfair on aspects of the aviation industry. One of the effects of giving powers to impose an immediate maximum on aeroplanes could be to shut out completely carriers from certain poorer countries. We all want progress; there is complete consensus in the Committee in all the relevant respects, in the sense that we all want both sorts of emissions to be reduced—CO?2? and nitrogen products. We all want noise to be reduced and so on. However, a rather arbitrary power, effectively to cut whole aircraft from the scene immediately, would, I am fairly certain, breach our treaty obligations. Even if it did not, it would be going too far. The balance to be struck between the interests of the industry and, indeed, the travelling public, on the one hand, and environmental requirements on the other, is not struck by the amendment, although it is well intentioned.

Robert Syms: I should be interested to know why, within the architecture of the Bill, the Government want the powers to be vested in a relevant manager, rather than some other authority. The reason may be in past legislation, and, if so, perhaps the Minister can confirm that.
I notice that the relevant manager both imposes fines and is the individual to whom an airline or carrier would make representations. To some extent, therefore, he is judge and jury. I wonder whether, in the matter of appeals, a different authority might be appropriate—a company or an aerodrome organisation rather than an individual, which might appoint a relevant manager to impose the fines and designate another part of the organisation to deal with appeals. 
As a matter of natural justice, there will be times when airlines will say, ''That was not us; that was not one of our aircraft,'' or ''You are being terribly unfair. There was a severe technical problem.'' I wonder about the effect on the relationship of vesting the imposition of fines and the hearing of representations in the same individual, and personalising the matter. It might be the right thing, and I do not feel terribly strongly about it. For example, a local authority has powers but an officer of that council often operates on its behalf. If someone objects, another part of the organisation is often the appeals panel. The Liberal Democrat amendment teases out a little the relationship between why the matter will be personalised and why it will not be the relevant authority, company or other organisation that deals with the topic.

Karen Buck: As so often in the Bill, we have weaved backwards and forwards around the various duties and responsibilities. We are back to stating the case that the monitoring of noise is a crucial part of the day to day operational business of airports. We expect them to pay careful attention to that and to manage their responsibility with suitable professionalism and integrity. We believe, and we have no reason to doubt, that it is important for them to retain the faith and goodwill of local communities, down to the fact that at some stage it is possible that they will need to engage their local authorities in planning decisions. They have a clear interest in being good neighbours and so serving their own interests, as well as it being sensible for them to behave in such a way.
Today and on Second Reading a number of hon. Members raised concerns that airports face a potential conflict of interest in managing their noise control schemes assertively while seeking to maintain the custom of airlines. Concerns seem to range over a number of different areas. Some hon. Members seem to believe that a single new body can solve all the problems and do so in a more effective and proportionate way than in the Bill as drafted. 
First, there seems to be a worry, which we discussed this morning in the context of Coventry airport, that airports will fix the noise monitoring procedures to the benefit of airlines. I would be interested to see any evidence of that as opposed to scaremongering. On the  contrary, I am aware that in a number of cases airports go out of their way to ensure independent consideration of their noise and track-keeping systems. For example, at Nottingham East Midlands airport the operator has been certified to the International Organisation for Standardisation—ISO—environmental management standard and its environmental policy and management systems are subject to independent audit every six months. The audit will include assessment of the noise monitoring system. At major airports such as Manchester and Birmingham the operators monitor noise and report to the consultative committees. 
We all know that noise is a sensitive issue and we can safely expect consultative committees to inquire closely about that aspect of airport operations. At Manchester we are aware that noise contours are prepared by the Civil Aviation Authority's environmental research and consultancy department, which is, of course, independent of the airport.

Robert Syms: I have never had the pleasure of sitting on an airport consultative committee. Are noise infringements automatically reported to them as part of their remit?

Karen Buck: I believe that it is the other way around. If there are noise concerns, they are represented through the consultative arrangements. It does not necessarily involve a standing committee but can be a mechanism or process through which concerns can be reflected.
I move on to the assertion that even if the monitoring procedures are correct, airports will not want to penalise airlines for breaches. Again, that is nothing more than hypothesis. Airports already take action to encourage and drive airlines to improve their operational noise performance. For example, more than 95 per cent. of flights at Manchester stick to noise preferential routes, and the percentage is even higher at Heathrow. Clearly, that has not happened by accident but reflects the fact that airports are willing and able to work with airlines to improve their performance. It has involved more intrusion and effort for airports to achieve that high percentage than would be implied by imposing fines on the relatively small number of planes that breach requirements. 
Achieving adherence to noise preferential routes requires investment in procedures and training, which have a cost and time commitment. We believe that the penalty scheme is a helpful further incentivisation of good behaviour, along with positive incentives such as the awards scheme offered by Manchester airport to the best performers. The Committee needs to look at the issue in the round in each local area. It will then see the penalty scheme as a component of a larger picture, which includes a number of elements to improve the noise environment at airports. We believe that airports are best placed to do that given their role and expertise. 
What encouragement would the Opposition amendment give to local initiatives to improve noise performance, or would it enable airports to argue that  their only obligation was to comply with the noise monitoring authority's requirements, thus removing the scope for positive action by individual managers? The danger of establishing an independent monitoring authority is that its measure of success would be how many aircraft were fined, and that would be wrong. The aim is not to maximise the number of aircraft caught but to minimise the number of aircraft failing to follow noise preferential routes. That is why airports that want to be good neighbours are best placed to manage the range of tools available to improve performance. 
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) pre-empted my final remark. The Secretary of State does have designation powers under section 78 if he believes that noise issues require a higher level of control in specific circumstances. Those powers will not be exercised lightly, but they provide a safeguard. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Graham Stringer: I was not intending to speak in this debate, but having listened carefully to the proponents of the amendments and the Minister, it seems that one line of argument is being missed. I accept that the proponents of the amendment are genuinely trying to get the best deal for local communities in terms of reducing noise. However, I think that the proposal in amendment No. 19 would disempower local communities.
Local communities have maximum influence at the public inquiries held when airports are expanding. I bring to mind public inquiries at Manchester and Gatwick, during which the community said that it wanted this or that commitment. For instance, at Manchester airport the local community did not want any more noise than it had had in 1992 once the airport had expanded until 2011. That commitment was given at the public inquiry. A similar commitment was given at Gatwick; so far as I am concerned, it was not a good commitment for aviation, but it might have been good for the local community in Croydon. If an independent body was setting those limits when an airport was thinking of expanding and wanted dialogue with the community, how would it happen? With the best of intentions, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington would be disempowering local communities from making the noise environment better. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Tom Brake: Clearly, amendment No. 19 has generated more heat than the others. I have listened carefully to what has been said, and I accept some of the points that have been made, so I shall therefore withdraw the amendment. However, the Minister suggested that I was creating fear or panic by raising the spectre of Coventry airport. I ask the Minister to consider whether, if she was given a blank sheet of paper, she would set up the sort of regulatory arrangements that have been established for Coventry airport; I suspect that the honest answer would be no. That debate will continue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 16, leave out from 'which' to end of line 17 and insert
'directly benefit those who live in the area, or under the flight path, in which the aerodrome is situated and shall seek the advice and consent of the airport's consultative committee before any such spending takes place.'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 31, in page 4, line 17, at end insert
'and which appear to him to be likely to mitigate noise or environmental disturbance for persons who are affected by the relevant operations.' 
Amendment No. 32, in page 4, line 17, at end insert— 
'(9) The relevant manager shall— 
(a) consult any body appearing to him to be representative of the operators of aircraft using the aerodrome, regarding the measures taken by operators to comply with the requirements; 
(b) consult any body appearing to him to be representative of persons who are affected by the operations of the aerodrome, regarding the beneficiaries of the payments; and 
(c) publish an annual report showing the penalties received from operators of aircraft using the aerodrome in question and every payment made under the scheme.'. 
New clause 4—Establishment of independent consultative facilities— 
'For section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c.16) (facilities for consultation at certain aerodromes) substitute— 
''(1) At all aerodromes the local authority shall establish a committee including representatives of— 
(a) users of the aerodrome, 
(b) relevant local authorities, and 
(c) any other organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated, 
for the purpose of consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests. 
(2) The chairperson of any committee established under subsection (1) shall be independent. 
(3) The local authority shall publish the minutes of all meetings held by a committee established under section (1).''.'.

Julian Brazier: Amendment No. 7 would deal with one of the oddest provisions that I have ever seen. I shall read the passage that we seek to amend, as I did on Second Reading. Subsection (8) of proposed new section 78A states:
''A relevant manager who receives penalties under a penalty scheme shall make payments equal to the amount of those penalties for purposes which appear to him to be likely to be of benefit to persons who live in the area in which the aerodrome is situated.''
As one of my colleagues pointed out, that is a privatisation of justice, with an arbitrary power for the person who is acting as judge, jury and executioner then to act as dispenser of the goodies. 
Amendment No. 7 seeks to go some small way to address that strange arrangement by striking out the second part of new section 78A(8) and replacing it with a provision that requires the advice and consent from the airport's consultative committee, and refers to the point that some of the people who suffer most live a long way from the aerodrome. To some extent, the amendment speaks for itself. We want to ensure  that the amendment benefits can in principle benefit anyone who suffers from the flight path and, crucially, that there is some independent monitoring of how the money is spent. 
The obvious means of achieving that is the consultative committee. We will say more about those committees shortly, but they basically bring together people in the area with a legitimate interest, local authorities, airlines and so on. One way of bringing what is a slightly Henry VIII provision back into the normal orbit would be for the consultative committee to have a say in how the money is spent. 
If I may say so, Sir Nicholas, you must have had to exercise the judgment of Solomon in sorting out the groups for the rest of the amendments. There is so much overlap with matters coming later that it must have been an unenviable task. I should like to comment on the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. 
Amendment No. 31 is straightforward, but I do not agree with it. I do not see why the money should be spent specifically on noise mitigation measures, as local people may prefer another worthwhile project. However, it is on the other two amendments that the problems really start to arise. I do not mean to say this pejoratively, but the hon. Gentleman seems to have lifted amendment No. 32 straight off amendments already tabled. Confusingly, proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b) appear to be copies of amendment No. 7, which is fine as we are discussing it as well. Paragraph (c) appears to be lifted from amendment No. 9, which we will reach shortly. That presents some problems, but I shall speak to them now. 
Obviously, I agree with the provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b). In effect, they rerun the crucial point about extending the provisions to those who are under the flight path but not in the area and reaching out to local interested groups. For that, we suggested a consultative committee. Proposed new paragraph (c) would introduce a requirement to publish an annual report. We proposed that in amendment No. 9, which was tabled a few days before. It is a good idea, as it would show the penalties received from operators of aircraft using the aerodrome in question and would outline the payments under the scheme. That seemed a good idea when we tabled it, and I am happy to have the flattery of imitation. 
New clause 4 overlaps in large measure with our new clause 7, which we will debate at the end of our proceedings. The one area on which it departs from new clause 7, of which it is largely a rewording, is in proposed new subsection (1), where it says: 
''At all aerodromes the local authority shall establish a committee including representatives of—'',
before listing those representatives. As I said, subsections (2) and (3) are echoes of our proposed new clause 7. 
Regarding subsection (1), I am slightly puzzled as to why the Liberal Democrats want committees at all airports. Surely, there are small airports around the country—we have had examples from Scotland and elsewhere—in which there is no need for consultative  committees because so few people are affected and because setting one up would simply be arbitrary. I shall wait to hear what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has to say, but I am not sure why every airport in the country should need a consultative committee. 
Subsections (2) and (3) of the proposed new clause, however, which have a familiar look to them, are genuine concerns. Subsection (2) states: 
''The chairperson of any committee established under subsection (1) shall be independent.''
Subsection (3) states: 
''The local authority shall publish the minutes of all meetings held by a committee established under section (1).''
The first point is a valid one, which is why we originally tabled new clause 7. Coventry airport, which has already figured in our discussions, has raised this issue. In an article in the Coventry Evening Telegraph, a pressure group argues that if the airport is to maintain its standing with the public, it is important that the chairman and secretary should not be closely identified with any sectional interest. I do not make a party political point—this is relevant to the proposed new clause. In the article, Archie Muir of the anti-expansion group Campaign Against the Expansion of Coventry Airport, CAECA, says that the group believes that Lord Snape's aviation background makes him unsuitable for the task of setting up an airport consultative committee. 
I am certain that all members of the Committee who sat with Lord Snape when he was in this House have the highest regard for him, but local campaigners do not see him as being sufficiently independent. I certainly shall not trade any arguments on that point; I suspect that you would restrain me, Sir Nicholas, if I did. I have the highest regard for Lord Snape, but there is a legitimate interest among members of the public that where a consultative committee is established and where it develops its important role, the chairman and secretary should be seen to be independent by all the various parties, such as the airport, the airlines, the local authority and pressure groups. 
We can return to these issues when we debate proposed new clause 7. I am not minded to support proposed new clause 4 as it is worded because I cannot accept its first provision. I am ready to listen to him on that point, but it seems wrong, prima facie, to insist that every airport should have a committee.

Tom Brake: First, it is incumbent on the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats to reveal the sources of our proposed amendments. It is unlikely that the Conservative amendment found its way to us and we got into a bidding race as to who should table it first. I suspect that any duplication is because we have been advised by the same organisation, rather than because the Liberal Democrats have stolen from the Conservatives.

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is right, of course. I simply made the point that it slightly complicates the Committee's proceedings that we  have a series of overlapping amendments. That has made it particularly difficult to group the amendments. Inevitably, there will be some fragmented discussion over these two or three groups.

Tom Brake: Indeed. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we should be flattering another organisation regarding the amendment.
Amendment No. 31 is intended to enable a debate about hypothecation, and whether it is appropriate for funds to be spent on other matters when the purpose is, I assume, primarily to alleviate the impact of noise and other environmental disturbances on the local community.

Adam Afriyie: Is it not the case that people all want their plight mitigated in different ways? It may be that noise protection is not what people under a flight path would choose; they might want something entirely different.

Tom Brake: I agree, but the amendment should be taken in conjunction with the Bill and the reference that the Opposition spokesman made to the powers that the relevant manager will have. That manager can dispense the funds in a way that appears to him to be likely to be of benefit to persons who live in the area where the aerodrome is situated. I suppose that the relevant manager may feel that investing in a large barbeque for his neighbours might be an appropriate response. Certainly, if one reads the subsection on its own, it would suggest that that might be an appropriate use. However, I am sure that there is something—perhaps elsewhere in the Bill—that would preclude that. So the amendment has to be considered in conjunction with other matters.
Hon. Members may have spotted that in amendment No. 32, we should perhaps have changed ''relevant manager'' to ''competent authority'', but having agreed not to press the use of the phrase ''competent authority'', and perhaps having anticipated that ''relevant manager'' would still be in the clause, we have kept ''relevant manager'' in the amendment. 
Amendment No. 32 is about ensuring adequate consultation with a range of organisations that are active users of the airport, associated with it, or suffering from its impact. That point is picked up in new clause 4, to which I shall come. The new clause is also about the setting up of the independent consultative facilities. 
The spokesman for the official Opposition questioned whether it is appropriate to establish such a consultative facility for all airports, irrespective of size. He referred to an airport that consisted of little more than a beach, and so on. Clearly, a number of people would have views on how that airport was run; indeed, that point was raised in debate. There would clearly be a body of people with views on the future of that airport to be consulted. So, whether we are talking about a large airport or a very small one, there is scope to consider independent consultative facilities. That is the purpose of new clause 4. 
The new clause would also ensure that information about the discussions relating to an airport was put in the public domain. I do not agree that a consultative facility would be unnecessary. In all likelihood, the smaller the airport, the more straightforward and the less demanding those consultative facilities would have to be, but I do not think that one can rule out the necessity of such a facility being up and running and available to ensure that people are involved with the airport. I look forward to the Minister's response, which will be an opportunity for her to set out whether the Government have any plans to expand consultation on these important issues.

Robert Syms: I support amendment No. 7. Looking at this part of the Bill, I am starting to wonder whether any of it ought to stay in. I say that because, at the moment, there is perceived to be a benefit. The relevant manager will send out fines, and it is up to that relevant manager to determine how that money will be spent. One feature of Second Reading was that I now have the name Nottingham East Midlands airport burned into my brain because of the number of individuals who spoke about it. There are people in adjacent counties who feel terribly strongly that they are affected by that airport.
The first issue to consider is what sort of money we are talking about. If we are talking about fines of £3,000, £4000, £5,000 or £6,000 rather than millions, we are talking about relatively small sums of money for most airports. Secondly, what is the area of benefit? To some extent that is the aim of amendment No. 7. If the area of benefit is so large that we are talking about a few pence for each parish council in the area, the perceived benefit to the communities adjacent to or near an airport will be relatively small. 
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked a very good question about how arbitrary a manager's decision can be—he mentioned a barbeque for his friends. If the decision is not arbitrary and is purely that of the manager, should the process not be more transparent? If there is going to be an area of benefit, should it not be mapped? One of the things that amendment No. 7 would do is ask what the area of benefit is for an aerodrome. If it should be mapped, should all of the area be mapped on an even basis, or would it be divided into zones 1, 2 and 3, with zone 1 for those very close to the airport, zone 2 for those a little farther out and zone 3 for those a little farther than that? 
Having been a county councillor in a former life with about 40 parish councils in my area, I can imagine almost every parish council within 50 yd of an airport thinking, ''Are we in, lads, or are we out? Should we write to the airport manager saying that this parish is badly affected by aircraft and we ought to be in?'' Given the relative sums of money and the promise, there will be a lot of disappointment. 
I would allow the relevant manager to collect the fines and give them to the CAA. When it comes to really small sums, it could spend the money on sponsors or monitoring equipment for noise, which would be a defined benefit and people would know where the fines were going, instead of having an  arbitrary system spread over a vast area that might be mapped in a manner that people do not understand. The relevant manager will have to report back in an annual report what he has done with the fines money and we all know that if people find out that one person has got a benefit and someone next door has not, all hell will break loose. Someone living at the end of the runway might feel that they have not had any benefit while someone 20 miles away with double glazing does. 
There are a lot of problems with the drafting and the Government would be very wise to go away and think about it. The amount of money for the amount of benefit is relatively small and it might be a better approach to define more closely what is done with the fines and ensure that the CAA deals with the airports by installing monitoring equipment instead of having arguments relating to every airport about who has benefits, and who is more worthy than someone else. 
I see lots of arguments ahead. If we are going to go ahead with the system, amendment No. 7 might improve it. The Government ought to reflect on the matter before the Bill goes on to the statute book.

Adam Afriyie: I would like to extend the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole. The word that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury used with regard to the manager being judge and jury on where the money should be spent was ''odd'', and that was exactly the word I would have chosen. Where the penalties should be spent appears to be solely a matter of an individual's judgment. My concern is that it is very easy for that individual to have a vested interest. He may have relatives in the area, he may support specific charities or he may have a friend under a particular flight path, and he could decide arbitrarily to pay the entire sum of money to an individual who lives somewhere under a flight path. I am concerned that that avenue should be cut off in some way, and amendment No. 7 would go some way towards doing that.
It was mentioned that there could be arguments or that the clause could generate contention among parishioners or different groups of people in a constituency or within the vicinity of the airport. People are likely to question judgments made by the manager and to have suspicions, even if nothing untoward is taking place. We all know that many people subscribe to conspiracy theories, and this power, if it is not defined better, will provide a great opportunity for them to express their suspicions. 
There is an opportunity to generate good will within the vicinity of an aerodrome or airport if initially, perhaps through a consultative committee, there were some survey or interaction whereby residents and those who are affected by the flight paths were able to express a view as to where the money might be channelled—not a full consultation with official processes but just a consultative committee. 
Finally, I am very much against any restriction on the use of the funds for a predefined purpose, whether noise restriction technologies or anything of that nature, as it is for the local residents and those under  the flight path to decide how they wish the moneys to be spent rather than for the nanny state, in many cases through a private organisation.

Karen Buck: We have a bit of a mixed bag of opinions on the issue, although I believe that we all agree that the money should be spent to benefit the local community, and that there are many options. I am uncomfortable with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Poole that we put the money into noise monitoring. A good authority should be doing that anyway. I believe that the majority of the Committee, including the hon. Gentleman, would agree, given the kind of sums involved, that the simplest, best and most effective thing to do would be to pump the money into community interests.
It has been said that vast sums would not be involved. I have inquired as to the likely amounts. Obviously, as with almost everything that we have discussed today, the answer is, as long as a piece of string. At Heathrow, which is the largest airport, the total amount raised in 2003–04 was £112,000—a significant amount but not a great deal of money in community terms.

Adam Afriyie: Does the Minister foresee the sums increasing with the extra flexibility in the Bill to raise levies and with the penalties that may arise from the rules that the Bill creates?

Karen Buck: I have no view at all as to what the sums should be. In a sense, the ideal situation would be that they go down. This is not a virility test, it is not about catching as many aircraft in breach as possible.
The hon. Gentleman—inadvertently, I suspect—has supplied me with another good reason for not locking ourselves into any kind of structure. I have more years of experience than I care to share with the Committee of taking part in fund distribution mechanisms below the level of local authority. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Poole has ever had such an experience. I was on a local authority, on an urban EU project, on a single regeneration project and on other individual small schemes, including local trusts and a trust that was established in respect of one of the building companies involved in Paddington basin. It is absolutely the case that once one gets below the level of a major local authority and sums of money that come to the level of a grant programme, it is possible to set up vastly over-structured, bureaucratic, expensive sets of apparatus which in any case may be completely redundant two years later because the funding changes so much. It is much better, with sums of this kind, to allow maximum flexibility as to how the money is delivered.

Julian Brazier: The Opposition are certainly not calling for large bureaucratic bodies. We are not saying that there must be a consultative committee at every airport or anything like that, but that the sums that are being handed out should be subject to a discussion process with the consultative committee, if there is one. That is what the amendment calls for. It hardly constitutes setting up a bureaucratic process. Indeed, I cannot think of a nicer item for a  consultative committee to have on its agenda than an opportunity to discuss how to spend a little money on a worthwhile local project.

Karen Buck: I am being slightly facetious, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take me too seriously when I invite him to join me on one of those committees. I have to tell him that they often bring out the most fiercely competitive elements of the community.
On his central point, I find it inconceivable that that process will not be used in every case in which there is a consultative committee—so that will be in every case in which a significant sum of money is to be disbursed. I cannot believe that an airport that found itself involved in distributing £50,000 would not wish to go down the consultative route, but would expose itself to the kind of criticism that might come about should it seek to direct that money in a personal or highly preferential way. Although it is possible to look at everything that might go wrong in such circumstances, and at all the risks involved in disbursing small sums of money, we need to be aware that one can overstate problems and create solutions that are worse than the problems. 
Amendments Nos. 7 and 31 seek to narrow down and clarify the ways in which communities can benefit. Amendment No. 7 suggests that the spending should directly benefit those who live in the area around the aerodrome or under the flight path. Again, I do not believe that it is necessary to be so specific. Clearly, those in the areas described in the amendment are likely to be most affected by acts giving rise to penalties and we would expect them to be the beneficiaries of the payments from the penalty scheme. In case the hon. Member for Canterbury is concerned that the area under the flight path would not be eligible to benefit, I can assure him that ''area'' is not defined in the Bill. We believe that it would include those living under the flight path. 
Amendment No. 31 suggests that payments should focus on mitigating noise or environmental disturbance. I would say to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that that is an unwise restriction. We expect airports to have in place suitable schemes for addressing mitigation, such as noise insulation schemes. Such schemes should be funded out of the existing income of the airport on the ''polluter pays'' principle. Those who are eligible to receive insulation should do so as a right, and certainly not, in effect, through distribution of money as a charity or a trust fund. Hon. Members would rightly say that it was unacceptable if householders' right to insulation depended on the level of penalty income in a given year. I do not believe that compensation is a big issue; airports will use their consultative apparatus if they have a significant sum to deliver. 
New clause 4 proposes new arrangements for establishing consultative committees. That puts the onus on the local authority to establish such a committee and requires a consultative committee for every aerodrome, no matter how small or how uncontentious its operation. The duty to establish a consultative committee would fall on the local authority in which the aerodrome was situated. I do  not believe that individual local authorities are better placed than airports themselves to establish such committees. 
I am aware of the concerns of some local authorities and other bodies that they are not represented on consultative committees for aerodromes whose operation affects them, but nothing in the Bill would give those bodies a guarantee that they would be members of the consultative committee. Conversely, the clause would impose unnecessary burdens on a number of local authorities by requiring them to establish consultative committees even where airports' operations were uncontentious—and they would incur costs in running such committees. 
The new clause includes specific provisions on independence and openness. Those are important principles, but the key is whether the aims can be achieved in practice. The Department's guidance makes it clear that, to maintain the confidence of the general public, it is important that the chair of any committee should not be closely identified with any sectional interest. The guidance also highlights the need to publicise the existence and role of committees. I am sure that we all agree on what a good committee looks like, but I do not believe that the new clause points us towards the right way to move forward.

Julian Brazier: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said on amendment No. 7, and I am not persuaded. The measure is an extraordinary departure from British law—effectively it is the privatisation of justice. Amendment No. 7, like amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which we discuss shortly, seem to us to be modest. I therefore wish to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Julian Brazier: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in clause 3, page 4, line 17, after 'area', insert
', or under the flight path,'. 
I have exhausted whatever I might have to say on the amendment in the previous discussion, which overlapped with it, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has some points to make relating to her constituency.

Justine Greening: This is a valuable amendment. One of the things that struck me in the debate about aircraft noise and how being close to airports impacts on people's day-to-day life is that there is a lot of scrutiny of the environment immediately around airports and that there is often good consultation  with local councils, as, in the case of Heathrow, in Hillingdon and Hounslow. However, my observation is that as one gets further away from the airport, while still under the flight path, as in places such as Putney and Wandsworth, the level of consultation and communication with, and consideration for, residents drops off rapidly. The best analogy that I can make is to say that it is like dropping off the side of a cliff.
Therefore, it is important to be specific and use the phrase ''under the flight path''. Although I am sure that that is what is meant by the legislation in place, the reality does not reflect that intention. So I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be specific and say ''under the flight path'', thus removing all doubts. That would send a clear message.

James McGovern: I am intrigued by the definition of ''under the flight path''. If the height of an aircraft is irrelevant, then on a flight from London to Aberdeen there would be many thousands of people under the flight path. Is there a strict definition about height? How high does a plane need to be for the people under it not to be under the flight path?

Justine Greening: There are some conditions under which the term ''flight path'' is determined. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point, which is, at what stage do we set the scope? My proposal is that the scope be set more broadly, which would force that question to be properly answered. The hon. Gentleman raised a good point, which brings me back to my agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that we should widen the scope of a flight path.

Adam Afriyie: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are actually talking about the penalties that the manager will be dishing out, rather than the general definition of what is under a flight path? It would be left to the manager's discretion to decide what he wanted to do, and whether or not the definition was incredibly precise. We are talking about opening up the area in which the consideration could be given.

Justine Greening: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. I have concluded my speech.

Karen Buck: I, too, feel that we have covered the ground quite well. I want only to repeat that flight paths can be implied by area. There is no benefit to be had from being more prescriptive than that. To refer back to a debate on a previous amendment, in the context of Heathrow and the sums in question, putting in place a complex definition to discuss how £112,000 would be allocated seems to be using a hammer to crack a nut.

Adam Afriyie: Will the Minister confirm that, under the definition, the manager could even make the decision to go outside an area, as defined elsewhere? Does he have a lot more freedom than the Bill sets out?

Karen Buck: My understanding is that we are talking about the benefit of persons living in the area in which the aerodrome is situated, which I would argue is wide enough to include people living under the flight path. I see nothing to be gained and a great deal to be lost  from the amendment, given the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) made about the increasingly complex set of definitions. In fighting for her constituents, the hon. Member for Putney might hope that Putney would get a share, but would we not all? It is quite likely that Regent's Park and Kensington, North would be in there for the bid. I think that she would find that the competitive disadvantage would outweigh any advantage secured.
The definition is adequate for the purposes.

Julian Brazier: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 3, page 4, line 17, at end insert
'and shall produce accounts listing where, when and how said money has been spent, and will place these accounts in the public domain.'. 
This is a simple amendment. To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole said earlier, I can imagine few easier ways of stirring up local animosity, envy and concern more than the idea that what are, as the Minister said, relatively modest sums could disappear without trace. The sums are incredibly modest for the aviation industry, although £30,000 or £50,000 is quite a substantial sum for our constituents. We do not call for huge amounts of regulation; all we call for is some accounting. 
There was quite a lot of unease in the House about the idea of the privatisation of justice; that is, that a private company can fine people. It is surely reasonable to show some account of how that money is subsequently spent, when the individual who controls that spending is the same person who decided that the fine was applicable.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that amendment No. 9 could be described as the barbecue amendment? It is in those accounts that that barbecue would be listed.

Julian Brazier: I am completely easy with that description; it is more colourful than the example of the brother-in-law's house that I gave on Second Reading. It is extraordinary that the power to spend the money should be put into the hands of the manager who made the decision. The Liberal Democrats and Opposition want to insert a sensible safeguard and the Minister should consider accepting the amendment.

Robert Syms: The Minister said that the figure for Heathrow airport last year was £112,000. The sums in respect of smaller airports will be extremely modest, and that brings me to my point about accounting. Given how modest the money is, it is highly unlikely that a manager would have enough to make a sizeable contribution to the community in the airport area in one year. He might have only a small sum. In other words, the relevant manager might wish to deliver a benefit to the community that might be in respect of fines over three, four, five, six or seven years. 
I do not regard my hon. Friend's accounting as wrong. If a manager has only a little sum of money, he cannot do very much with it and there is a logic in saving up until a reasonable difference can be made. However, there should still be a method of reporting or accounting. In life, we all meet people who say that they contributed to the council for a particular scheme but have not seen what has happened to the money. Utilities, councils and public bodies build up cash and, at some point, they deliver what they want to do. What will happen in respect of particular airports if the managers were raising small sums of money year on year? How would that be accounted for? Would it be undertaken by the consultative committee and take the form of accounts? Would the managers therefore deliver a benefit, not annually or bi-annually, but when they could make a real difference? Will the Minister say a little more about the time scale for delivering the benefit?

Karen Buck: Given the sort of questions that the hon. Member for Poole is asking, I am in danger of exhausting my total knowledge of the subject. I am wildly speculating because I do not have the figures in front of me, but I do not agree with the basic premise that, if a small airport generated £15,000 a year, it would not be enough for a local manager to make a useful, beneficial donation to a community organisation. I know of one example. In Stansted, in one year the money was used to partly fund the preservation of a local wood. We could all cite examples of when £15,000 or £20,000 could be used during one year, not only for a good barbecue—it would be a very good barbecue; I would not mind going to it—but some other useful, valuable issue.
When referring to the build-up of funds, we are in danger of speculating ourselves into an unnecessary complex set of arrangements. I am certainly not aware—nor are the Government—of any worries about how the designated airports raise the significantly larger share of the penalty income and how they use or account for their funds.

Tom Brake: Does the Minister agree that there are perhaps no worries because those airports tend to operate trusts that have several representatives, not one manager?

Karen Buck: Yes, I agree with that. However, that is a slightly chicken and egg argument. The larger airports with the significant sums of money are likely to have a separate trust and contribute to that. We would not want to impose an unnecessarily heavy regulation on smaller airports when the money involved is about £5,000 a year. Moreover, in financial terms, they are all subject to audit and accountancy like other organisations. It would be fair to say that almost every airport that is raising a significant sum that runs into four figures is likely to have a consultative committee.
To confirm the point about which we both agree, the BAA provides regular reports on its noise fines fund to its consultative committee and its noise and track-keeping committees on which representatives of local authorities sit. The BAA community relations team maintains a full list of organisations that have benefited from the fund. 
I do not think that there is reason to expect any problems with transparency with respect to organisations at a level involving a significant sum of money; also, the kind of regulation that would effectively be imposed on smaller airports, when the amounts involved would be very small, is, I would argue, quite disproportionate.

Julian Brazier: I am not really persuaded, but as we have already had a Division on the issue of accountability, on amendment No. 7, I shall not divide the Committee again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in clause 3, page 4, line 17, at end insert—
'(9) Before establishing a penalty scheme under subsection (1), and at annual intervals thereafter, the relevant manager shall— 
(a) take account of the impact of breaches and the measures taken by operators to comply with the requirements; and 
(b) consult any person or body appearing to him to be representative of operators of aircraft using the aerodrome in question.'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 37, in clause 3, page 4, line 27, at end insert
', taking account of the impact of the breach and the measures taken by the operator to comply with the relevant requirement.'.

Julian Brazier: The amendment arises from considerable concerns that the airlines have raised with us. British Airways tells us that the airlines are worried that the aerodrome operators must consult only about some types of restrictions; not all of them. Crucially, there is no requirement for an aerodrome to take account of economic interests, safety requirements or international agreements. The aerodrome would be able to limit aircraft operations within a 40 km radius of the airport unless the Secretary of State directed otherwise. British Airways argues that that is too large an area, as most noise is concentrated within the 10 km radius, for all but the largest international airports, where, obviously, the larger radius applies. The aerodrome could, in fact, have a perverse incentive to use the powers to create a fund that could be used to enhance its local image. Virgin makes similar points.
We do not want to oppose the schemes. We are happy about them in principle, although not about a single manager both implementing the scheme and deciding how to spend the money. However, we think it reasonable that the Government should impose checks and balances to take account of the interests of the airlines. The airlines are not opposed to the existing schemes, but they are concerned that we could establish a perverse incentive so that an airline might try to boost its local image at the expense of one or two of its customers by taking some silly measures. 
I am sure that the Minister will respond that the airline lives by its customers and so will not do anything to harm them. However, the two largest airlines in the country are worried that the provision could provide arbitrary powers, which might be a bit draconian, in some circumstances. If the complaints were being made by a small airline, that would be  worrying, but the fact is that the two biggest airlines are worried about what will happen without sensible checks and balances as well as a reasonable requirement to take account of both the seriousness of the impact of breaches and, crucially, the extent to which the operators try, within the requirements of safety and international agreements, to comply. They seem to have a fair point.

Tom Brake: I support the amendment. We have had a discussion about whether it is appropriate for the relevant manager single-handedly to set up penalty schemes and to dispense the funds, and whether it is appropriate to involve the wider community in those discussions. It is appropriate to consider the airlines as part of that wider community, and to have input into the negotiations. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has raised an important issue. We have heard, as we have been considering the Bill, that the relevant manager both fines and is the person to whom the person fined makes representations; he is both judge and jury.
My hon. Friend raised the good point that the most important requirement is safety. On Second Reading, the example was given—I think it was given by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith)—of aircraft being diverted because of 9/11; some were diverted to Cardiff. That would put an added strain on the particular area round an aerodrome. In such a situation, no doubt air traffic control would be doing its best to ensure that the aircraft remained within the requirements to keep them far apart. Therefore, it could be air traffic control's decision that resulted in those aircraft being off the normal flight path or flying rather lower and therefore causing more noise for people. 
If air traffic control was trying to ensure that 40 aircraft that were trying to get into a much smaller aerodrome did so safely, it might be arbitrary that British Airways or some other airline found itself in that position, and could be fined. One would hope that the relevant manager in such a situation would use their common sense and would not fine the airline because those were extraordinary circumstances. 
However, there must be some ground rules so that the airlines know what situation they are dealing with. We have already raised the concern about acting as judge and jury and fairness to the airlines. I therefore think that some kind of code in a particular aerodrome would be useful to make it clear that where safety is concerned, noise becomes a lesser requirement. If there are extraordinary circumstances in which there are a lot of aircraft going in at very short notice because of weather conditions or a crisis, we need to ensure that that is not a circumstance in which an airline will find itself fined and at the mercy of a particular manager who, to some extent, will be dealing with the results of their own decision.

James McGovern: Obviously, there is technology available that allows us to measure sound and carbon emissions. However, I cannot see that  measuring impact is such an exact science. How would the impact of a breach be measured?

Robert Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is difficult to measure the impact of a breach. However, my principal point is that there may be an extraordinary situation, in which a carrier finds itself in a position that is not within its control, but as a result of the circumstances, and in which it might be fined. The airlines need to be concerned about the ground rules or a code of conduct. In the briefing that we received before Second Reading, they were certainly concerned about the various turning circles around airports, and about meeting certain international standards and guidelines.
 Even if the Minister does not accept our amendment as part of the Bill, I hope that she will assure us today that when there is an extraordinary circumstance—an emergency or a weather emergency or something else that we cannot conceive today—the airlines will be treated in a fair way, even if it is the decision of one person.

Karen Buck: I am inclined to take the view that somehow there is a lack of balance, because earlier on we were subjected to some criticism that the arrangements were intended to be so cosy that no penalties would be imposed at all, and now there is criticism that airlines could be used as milch cows, in order to promote the airport's image,.
However, I shall reassure the hon. Member for Poole on the key point of safety. He is right that it is important. Safety regulation is fundamental to the way in which the CAA regulates UK civil aviation. There is no question of airports' being permitted to impose a penalty scheme if direction is taking place to uphold safety regulations. Section 78A(4) requires the scheme to 
''afford the operator of the aircraft an opportunity to make representations to the . . . manager . . . before or after the penalty is imposed.''
The provisions also allow the airport manager the discretion 
''to cancel the penalty if he considers it appropriate to do so having considered those representations.''
Frankly, I find it inconceivable that, in situations in which the CAA has made it clear that any breaches were consistent with safety regulations, any such fine would go ahead. 
On the broader point about the consultation, in practice airports should and will consult their customers on their schemes. It would not be in their interest not to. Should a dispute on a charging scheme reach the courts, I have no doubt that a lack of consultation on the charges would be taken into consideration. In general, I do not believe that these schemes will be used to take money unfairly from airlines that are behaving reasonably and complying with good practice. Again, it simply would not be in the interests of the airport operators to do so because they would run a substantial risk of legal challenge. I am confident that the provisions do not legitimately attract criticism from Opposition Members and I ask  the hon. Member for Canterbury to withdraw the amendment.

Julian Brazier: I must just pick up on the Minister's opening comment. Given the number of airports around the country, there is nothing inconsistent in worrying about the fact that there may be circumstances in which there is collusion in bad practice in one part of the country, while there are people abusing powers in another part of the country. The fact that the economics of aviation are so different in different parts of the country—in particular, the economics of the south-east are so completely different from the rest of the country—means that there is certainly scope for things going wrong in both ways.
As far as the Minister's remarks go, what she says sounds reasonable. I am willing to withdraw the amendment, but I am left a little puzzled about why our largest airlines—those that have the greatest negotiating power—have written to us all at some length with their concerns in this area. I urge the Minister to keep an eye on the issue. If an airline as big as British Airways is worried about the matter—presumably it and other airlines such as Virgin took legal advice before writing to us—there may be a real concern. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: I always seek to be helpful to a Committee. I understand that an arrangement has been made through the usual channels about the progress that is to be made on this Bill. If we have not concluded by approximately 7 o'clock, I intend to suspend the Committee for a dinner break for an hour. I hope that that gives the Committee a guide. If, however, the usual channels indicate to me that we will complete the business that they wish to complete by 7.30 pm, I am happy to continue until then. I do that for the convenience of all Members, because in addition to their work in the Committee, they have other important responsibilities.

Clause 4 - Power for aerodromes to establish

Julian Brazier: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in clause 4, page 7, line 21, leave out from 'which' to end of line 22 and insert
'directly benefit those who live in the area, or under the flightpath, in which the aerodrome is situated and which appear likely to mitigate noise disturbance for persons who are affected by the relevant operations, and shall seek the advice and consent of the airport's consultative committee before any such spending takes place.'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 38, in clause 4, page 7, line 22, after 'area', insert 
', or under the flight path,'. 
No. 40, in clause 4, page 7, line 22, at end add 
'and shall produce accounts listing where, when and how said money has been spent and shall publish these accounts.'.

Julian Brazier: I will be quite brief, not only because I listened carefully to what you just said, Sir Nicholas, but because that was always my intention. Essentially, these amendments mirror for clause 4 and the noise control schemes what the earlier amendments would have done for the penalty schemes under the earlier clauses. I will not waste any time on amendment No. 38. I accept the Minister's assurance that ''area'' includes the flight path as normally defined.
I am only speaking briefly to amendments Nos. 39 and 40, which call on the committee to produce accounts of any money spent under the schemes. There is not a great deal that can be said afresh about the amendments that has not be said during discussions on earlier points. 
The Conservative party is not a great one for arguing for regulation. We oppose huge quantities of regulation—I last attended a debate on deregulation yesterday—but if money is being taken off people in this way, it is reasonable for accounts to be published showing how it is spent and reasonable that there should be some discussion. The airlines, too, feel that that is right. I shall introduce the following quote from the British Airways brief as my one further comment: 
''Airlines have never challenged . . . fines . . . and also because the amounts involved have been declining as airlines have renewed their fleets . . . these powers could easily create a conflict of interests where an aerodrome or the Secretary of State sets a limit or increases a fine so as to create a fund for local projects without cost to themselves.''
BA then calls for governance arrangements. 
I can only repeat that we voted on amendment No. 7. I must warn the Minister that I am minded not to withdraw amendment No. 39. It is reasonable that where an aerodrome is establishing a noise control scheme, it should consult as to how any moneys are spent and publish some accounts. That is no more burdensome than the task of a parish council; indeed, it is probably less so.

Tom Brake: I just want to clarify a point. I thought that when I moved an amendment related to linking the spending of the fines on mitigating the noise impact, the hon. Gentleman said that he was not minded to support it because he did not think it appropriate to link the spending to tackling noise. However, it appears that with his amendment the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do exactly that. Perhaps he will explain whether I have misunderstood the purpose of the amendment.

Julian Brazier: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on spotting the inconsistency. As he observed earlier, we are both dependant on outside bodies to assist us in drafting. I put my hands up on that small inconsistency.
The point that we are trying to make in the two amendments is that in this scheme, as with the earlier penalty schemes, there should be some consultation on spending the money and some accounts should be published. That is a far less burdensome requirement than the requirements on parish councils disposing of similar sums. I am certain that in practice most aerodromes will do that anyway. It is not unreasonable to ask them to do it in this case.

Karen Buck: Sir Nicholas, I will not strain your patience by repeating what I think of the broad thrust of the arguments that we have already heard. As the hon. Gentleman says, the overwhelming majority of airports—if not all of them—will already be making some provision for how that money is spent and accounted for and will be engaging in consultation, because if that money is to be used for community benefit they will wish to ensure that they get the public relations benefit of allocating it.
We will not gain anything by agreeing the amendment. I restate the argument that we had earlier today.

Julian Brazier: I am minded to press this amendment to a vote. It seems extraordinary that a Government who have placed so many extra duties on every level of local authority—not least on parish councils, as I know that my own parish council struggles with them—should exempt those organisations from a much less burdensome requirement, which most of them satisfy.

Karen Buck: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands and agrees, however, that the requirement for even a small amount of public money to be accounted for has no equivalent in this case.

Julian Brazier: With respect, that argument seems to chase its own tail. The point made by several of us, including our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), was that the money should be public money as it comes from fining. The extraction of penalties is to be privatised, and it will then be argued that because the power to extract penalties from people has been privatised, the fines are no longer public money. We are dealing with sums of money comparable to those of parish councils, and we are asking for a requirement that any good airport operator would meet anyway. The requirement is not at all burdensome.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Public Airport Companies: Power of Secretary

Graham Stringer: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 38, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, in page 8, line 4, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
No. 13, in page 8, line 9, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 11, in page 8, line 1, leave out from second 'activity' to 'incidental'. {**InsertionPoint/**}

Graham Stringer: The clause amends section 17(4) of the Airports Act 1986, and it is worth casting our minds back to that Act, as it set up airport companies in the public sector. You will remember, Sir Nicholas, that the Government of the day were particularly concerned, almost to the point of paranoia, that local authorities would use any device that they possibly could to get around the Government's capital controls or the controls on their basic functions. The Government therefore included section 17, which basically said that an airport could not be used to do something that a local authority that owned the airport could not do.
Politically, we have moved a long way from that point. Those airport companies, such as that at Manchester and a number of others, have shown themselves to be very responsible. We have also moved into a world in which airports around the world are changing and looking to the United Kingdom for expertise. BAA runs a number of airports and provides a number of services to airports in every continent of the world, I think. Airports have diversified into the functions around them and provide services that they perform well to other bodies. 
I support this clause, which gives the Secretary of State the power to say that airports that are owned by local authorities and in the public sector can do things that BAA, as the best example, can do. That is good for those airports commercially and good for the United Kingdom, which leads the world in many such services. That sits nicely alongside the decision that the Government took six years ago to free up local authority-owned airports from capital controls. I welcome the drive of the clause. 
I tabled the amendments because although I welcome that drive I think it good to reflect on how much power is being left in the hands of the Secretary of State. The power that the Secretary of State has or does not have has come up in our discussions on every clause. I am always surprised when I listen to Conservative Members of Parliament in Committee arguing that the Secretary of State should have more control, and arguing for more targets and more regulation. When I read the Official Report yesterday, the Conservatives were saying that they wanted less regulation, fewer targets and less control by the Secretary of State.

Adam Afriyie: I observe merely that we are arguing for less unnecessary and unhelpful regulation, not less regulation.

Graham Stringer: I would have been surprised if the hon. Gentleman had argued the opposite.

Julian Brazier: I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is nothing inconsistent in arguing on the one hand that whole areas do not need  regulation—I do not want to tempt your patience, Sir Nicholas, but the health foods industry figured heavily yesterday—and that whole areas could be exempted from an enormously burdensome regulation affecting millions of people, and on the other that it is not unreasonable that aerodromes, which have a significant impact on local life, should be subject to an easier version of the regulation on parish councils in spending money that they have taken in fines.

Graham Stringer: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I think regulation highly necessary in the aviation industry for the purposes of safety, for instance. In some ways, that is being delayed. I am less convinced that we could not sweep whole swathes of economic regulation away, and that we would not benefit from that. That is the direction in which the aviation industry is going. I shall not press the amendments to a Division, but I think it is worth pausing for thought about them and asking what the real controls should be.
Amendment No. 11 is separate. New subsection 17A(2) says: 
''Any activity so specified must be an activity which appears to the Secretary of State to be incidental to or connected with carrying on the business of operating an airport''.
Why do not we simply say that any activity so specified must be an activity incidental to or connected with the business? That would be absolutely clear, and it would be like any other piece of legislation. If the airport started doing something that was completely unconnected with the aviation business, it would be up to its competitors and the public to take it to court, as with any other body that is set up under statute. That would be a better process than having the centralised control of the Secretary of State determine what those activities are. I do not believe that the knowledge of any future Secretary of State is likely to be better than that of the business itself.

Julian Brazier: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I must say that I like his approach when he is not knocking my party. [Interruption.] I know; we all get that way at the end of the day.
The hon. Gentleman is focusing quite rightly on amendment No. 11, but I am a little confused as to how it would deliver what he is trying to achieve. I hope that he will develop that point, because it is not at all clear how striking out those particular words will shift the burden from the Secretary of State to the court. Perhaps I am missing something obvious.

Graham Stringer: I am prepared to accept that I might have made a drafting error, but I can explain my intention behind the amendment. I did not have the help of any lobbying body; the amendments are all my own work.
Under the clause, the activity is a matter for the judgment of the Secretary of State. The amendment would remove him from the clause so that it is left to the business to decide what the activity is. 
Similarly, amendment No. 10 would allow airport companies to carry out their business in the way in which business is conducted in the aviation world by changing ''may'' to ''shall'' in line 30 on page 7. For  airports owned by local authorities, that is a sensible way of doing business. 
Why should not the Secretary of State simply say that he shall provide for an activity, rather than leaving it up to lobbying, which involves the time and work of civil servants and almost inevitably ends up being a negotiation between them and the people who work for publicly owned airports? 
Power is still being kept in Whitehall. If an airport is cheating, it is cheating by using public subsidy, which is challengeable, as airport companies must produce accounts. We do not need the Secretary of State either to transfer the balance of responsibilities or to take certain decisions later, which is why I have also changed ''may'' to ''shall'' in several other areas. That is simply not required. In the normal world, either the competition authorities or the courts will deal people who are cheating. 
I tabled the amendments to give the Government pause to think on this and other clauses and to decide whether it would be better to run with the grain in terms of how the aviation business is moving in the economic area, and to free it up by removing the responsibilities from the Secretary of State. That would make for a healthier business all round.

Julian Brazier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on the amendments, which are ingenious, although I may quibble a little. I was slightly confused as to why he wanted to take out the incidental reference; it is obvious why he wants to take out the reference to the Secretary of State.
We all have a memory of the way in which airports have changed. I have a particular memory of the days when the British Airports Authority's airports were publicly owned and what bleak places they were when they did not carry out any other activities. As I understand it, the amendment seeks to cover the non-designated airports and to free them up a little. 
I will just tell an anecdote. As a child, my father was serving in the Army in Germany and I was sent over here to boarding school, so I used to commute many times in the days when planes froze up and so on. Such is my age that I sometimes even spent nights in those bleak places. We all want to see airports fulfil their full potential. 
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should be looking for an element of deregulation. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say, but I am strongly minded to support the hon. Gentleman's ideas. It is not necessary for the Secretary of State to lay down what is or is not appropriate for those airports to do. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his amendments.

Tom Brake: I, too, support the amendments. They are sensible and make it clear that public airport operators will have those powers and so on. If the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley is minded to press the matter to a vote, I will certainly support him. If nothing else, it will relieve the monotony of the 10 to 5 Divisions that we have been having today.

Karen Buck: I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley for his expertise and knowledge, and, in particular, his championship of Manchester airport over the years. He comes to this debate with a great deal of knowledge, which he has demonstrated as usual in his speech. Unfortunately, I will not be able to give him any encouragement on the amendments, for reasons that I will quickly outline.
The amendments would remove the discretion that clause 5 gives the Secretary of State as to whether regulations should be made under new section 17A, and would instead place a duty upon him to do so. A duty to make regulations would be highly unusual, and I hope to persuade my hon. Friend that it is not necessary. 
Amendment No. 10 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to specify the permitted activities that a public airport company may undertake. I can reassure my hon. Friend that it is our intention to use the power, after proper consultation with the airports to be affected and the local authorities with a shareholding interest, and after due consideration of whether the activities it will permit are appropriate, but it is not necessary for the power to be turned into a duty. 
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 appear to be designed to remove further elements of the Secretary of State's discretion as to how the powers of the local authorities are best expanded. Again, I believe that they are unnecessary, as they would impose a burden on the Secretary of State to make regulations without the ability and flexibility to ensure that the regulations are fit for the purposes of the airport companies affected. It runs the risk that conditions and stipulations will be set where none are necessary. 
It follows that amendment No. 11 is also unnecessary. To comply with the duty placed in amendment No. 10, or the power as drafted, it will still be necessary for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the activity is incidental to or connected with the airport business whether or not the words to be deleted by amendment No. 11 are left in. Any regulations would be open to legal challenge if the Secretary of State were to act unreasonably in deciding whether an activity is connected with carrying on the business of operating an airport. So, before making the regulations, the Secretary of State would still have to form his own view on the question. Consequently, amendment No. 11 would be unlikely to make much difference in practice. 
The amendment was probably prepared more with Manchester Airports Group and its shareholding local authorities in mind. Manchester Airports Group is the flagship airport company in the public sector and it is a world class operator. However, other successful public airport companies, such as Newcastle and Leeds-Bradford, are in the frame. 
Those airports and their shareholding local authorities may want certain activities to be permitted but not others. If that were the case, and a majority of the shareholding local authorities did not want their company to undertake certain activities, it is right that the Secretary of State should be in a position  to take that into account in making regulations under section 17A(3). I am sure it is not my hon. Friend's intention to reduce such a useful flexibility, so I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Stringer: I am grateful that the Minister has made the commitment that the regulations will be introduced, as they will be welcome. However, I hope that she will reflect on how much control still resides in the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State in a business that does not need that. That is the way things were done 20 or 30 years ago.
I will seek leave to withdraw my amendment, but only because I accept that my amendments may be technically flawed and were simply a device to have a debate. However, there is also a flaw in the Minister's logic that while Manchester airport might need the powers to trade as effectively as possible, if Leeds-Bradford airport does not want to run services to Melbourne or Adelaide, it should not have them. The powers would be only enabling, and I know of few companies that would refuse the power to carry out a commercial activity because they did not want to use it now, because they might want to do carry out that activity in future. That side of the Minister's argument is slightly weak, and I ask her to reflect on that. However, I am happy to seek leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Adam Afriyie rose—

Graham Stringer: I am sorry, but I have finished my contribution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 6 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the Committee on the extremely rapid progress that we have made, with the co-operation of all parties. I congratulate those Members who have participated. From my point of view, it has been a learning curve and an excellent and constructive debate, and I congratulate the Minister and shadow Minister on how they have dealt with the Bill. I am saying this because I shall not be in the Chair on Thursday morning, and I believe that the Committee has run very well. We thank all those involved, including the police, in making this a well-run and orderly Committee.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Roy.] 
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock till Thursday 7 July at Nine o'clock.